BobbinThreadbare

I keep getting it with the damage over and over. See the 4th portrail from the right? All that health damage was sustained in a single encounter from deep wounds. Crow is actually the left most potrait getting lit up in the current encounter. Edit: I see in the known issues thread this was supposed to be fixed in v278, but it's clearly still happening to me. I verified the cache to be sure and it still happens.

I don't think this is actually a problem. Why is it bad if players are maximizing the attributes they want? Is that something that actually needs to be discouraged?

This

I would actually like to see attributes start at 10 with the option to lower them as well. It just "feels" better. I'm not even sure why.

The "slow" speed is 50% speed. That's way too slow. When I played IE games, I would set about half the autopause options, and constantly be pausing and making sure I was making the right moves. A lot of the autopause features in PoE are bugged right now, which I understand will be fixed, but that combined with faster attacks and seriously the beetles and spiders are racing along right now, nothing in IE had footspeed like that, makes it all feel too fast.

Fighters seem like the most boring class ever created. I'd go monk, and barbarian as my front line. Behind them, a cypher, wizard, priest... and I'm not sure for the last character. I haven't tried out druids or rangers. Maybe one of them or a rogue.

In combat, beetles and spiders are running towards me at relativistic speeds, attacks are happening all the time. It feels even more chaotic than BG2. When you couple this with basically every attack hitting, it becomes really hard to follow what's happening. I wish full misses were more frequent, and I'd like everything to go slower. Thanks for reading.

The attributes feel so weak right now, I wonder why I took the time to assign them. Certainly there's no point in thinking about a niggling point here or there. I know D&D went from 3-18, but I see no reason for the attributes as they exist to do such a thing. Going from 1-5 would probably be sufficient. I sort of wish there were effects that happened every X number of points assigned. Something like every 3 might a character's knockdown resistance goes up or something. The exact same minor effect on each point assigned is just boring.

An order devoted to General Sherman? Cool.

Q1: I don't really care about the specific number. My own personal desire for a certain kind of neatness enjoys that there are en equal number of physical and mental attributes in DnD, but it does a terrible job making them useful. This is less of a problem in PnP where the DM can adjust. Q2: Conceptually, yes. In the IE games and DnD in general, it's not too hard to max out 2 attributes if one wants to. So I'm pretty non-commited to either view point. Q3: I like them separate. It adds more variety to characters. Q4: It seems a little bit unusual to me, but I can live with it. Q5: My gut tells me yes, but my mind tells me no. I'm willing to go along with the designer until it doesn't work. Q6: I like the system Sawyer has described. Strength determines the number of items available to a character. The devil is in the details of course. If it is too strict, it will be annoying, and if it is too leinient it will feel like the increased inventory is pointless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission

I like the idea of a hot key to continue, but I don't know if 1 would be the best. What about tilda? Or just pressing any key?

For the most part, I want to spend gold to be in a better situation than I was before. Spending gold to maintain the status quo feels unfullfulling to me. If it happens, I want it to be a consequence of me failing to play the game well. So buying a potion because I took more damage than expected is fine. It's sort of like mini-punishment for not doing well enough to not need the potion. That's where my dislike of a durability meter comes from, it feels like I'm being punished for just playing the game. Also, I like unique items to exist both in dungeons and in shops. It's always fun to see some super expensive sword you can't afford and you save up over 10 hours of game play and can finally buy it, and it's equally fun to delve into some tomb and take the king's magic shield.

I've already admitted this is a mental problem I have.

I specifically said "with regards to durability". According the Sawyer the whole durability idea was added to give you a reason to take crafting with all characters. So that's the only reason you would invest it in with more than one character.

There's no wasting money. Repair costs are proportional to damage, so fixing a sword twice from 70% should cost about the same as fixing it once from 40%. The release of repairing an item is going to be very small and very short lived, while the tension of durability will be basically ever present as the first time you swing it's already below 100%. While they're might be some reward, the cost-reward ratio is terrible. However, I meant no reward for investing in crafting with regards to durability. In truth there is some reward, but again it's minimal and feels terrible. No one likes to spend money, even in games, and when the reward is "you get to spend less money", well that's not my idea of fun. I'm not wholly against the idea of durability, but the mechanic presented is about as boring and tedius as I can think of.

As described, durability sounds tedius and boring. First there is my psychological response to seeing a durability bar constantly go down. Which is a negative one. I can definately see myself heading back to a forge every time a weapon hits ~75% "just in case". This isn't going to be fun, but that bar going down all the time is going to create concern in my mind. Second, is that mechanic has no reward for the player. Even if you pump crafting as high as you can, you don't gain anything from the durability, you just lose less.

The scene looks absolutely fantastic. Well done.

The real problem isn't that selling off weapons and armor make a person rich. The problem is that adventurers never die. Imagine in real life if you could go kill thousands of people, their possessions, and sell them off at a pawn shop. Futher more there are no repurcussions, and if anything ever goes wrong, you can just reload and try it again. How long do you think it would take to become very wealthy?

Think about chopping firewood, and accidentally missing a swing and hitting your leg with the axe (not an uncommon occurence, and a pretty serious one too). Obviously some sense should be held onto when simulating accidents, but it's not really impossible for one to harm himself due to a clumsy attempt at whatever. Not... not really? I mean, as far as accidents go, yeah, it happens. But of the tens of thousands of times (bull**** estimate) I've swung an axe at a block of wood, I have had zero accidents. If I "critically missed" a block of wood as often as some of the RPG characters I've played, I would have had no legs before I left elementary school. Of course, logs don't fight back, which is a contributing factor to the whole "critical miss" thing. Even then, their rate of occurrence in games in which they're implemented is... kinda silly. And even if they do have a good rate of occurrence and good effects and all that... well, like I said, I really prefer them in turn-based games where I can properly appreciate them occurring. Funny you should bring this up. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=1851496

I really like the change to have full misses and glancing blows. This actually adds more nuance to the DnD system. The kind that is easy to grasp but would be annoying to keep track of with dice.

Spurious reasoning is spuriuos. The opposite of an instant kill would either be an instant self-kill or fully healing the enemy, not doing nothing.

I've never been amazing in the realm of math, but you run the same probabilities. EG 20 cards in said deck, 1 or 2 can crit, 10 or more can miss, etc. Pretty similar to DnD minus outside modifiers like stats, gear, abilities, and having an effect. EDIT: Basically, each card would just represent a number from 1 to 20 in said deck. I think his idea was that the cards stay pulled out. So probability changes as you attack. I've never seen this done well, it usually feels cheap. Oh I hit 3 times in a row, I'm due for a miss now.

I think you forgot one major outcome, which is handled very well in 3E rules. A attacks, but is too weak (or unskilled) to penetrate B's armor That's why touch AC exists. If you give some 60 year old wizard who's spend his whole life in a library a sword and ask him to whack at a dude wearing plate mail, he's unlikely every to do any real damage despite the fact that he is making contact with his sword. On the otherhand, if he's trying to cast shocking grasp and just needs to lay his hand on the dude's armor, he probably has a fair chance at suceeding.

I can't count the number of times I've seen players make a complaint in the vein that their XCOM units had 90% chance to hit and missed three times in a row. "Impossible!" Isn't the real problem here that you generally only get 1 shot per turn in XCOM and combat is very deadly? If players were getting 5 attacks per turn, they wouldn't mind missing 3 90% chance shots in a row as much. IE games always had more survivability than XCOM, so I think this is far less likely to be a problem.